DONATE

Saturday, January 14, 2012

A Leftist’s Lips Move Followed by Lying Revisionism

I received a comment from an obvious Left Wing – the Constitution is a living document – and perhaps an atheist Doug Indeep relating to this post at SlantRight 2.0: “The Homosexual Classrooms Act is an Assault on the Constitution and Christianity”. I am certain Mr. Indeep is a pseudonym relating to “Dug in deep”. His profile page on Blogger releases little information about him except that he is a lawyer and resides on the Left Coast; i.e. California. As of this writing Indeep’s blog is empty which indicates he created a profile to use the wisdom of the Left to annoy the Right.

Indeep’s line of thinking in refuting The Homosexual Classrooms Act post is to proclaim the Constitution is the bedrock of the existence of Separation of Church and State and that David Barton’s scholarship of the Founding Fathers is revisionist history according to Chris Rodda herself a Leftist ideologue that chose to attack the credibility of Barton’s sources.

So this is what I am going to do. I am going to post Indeep’s comment here in its entirety followed by some of my thoughts which will be followed by a refutation of Christ Rodda.

Separation of church and state is a bedrock principle of our Constitution much like the principles of separation of powers and checks and balances. In the Constitution, the founders did not simply say in so many words that there should be separation of powers and checks and balances; rather, they actually separated the powers of government among three branches and established checks and balances. Similarly, they did not merely say there should be separation of church and state; rather, they actually separated them by (1) establishing a secular government on the power of "We the people" (not a deity), (2) saying nothing to connect that government to god(s) or religion, (3) saying nothing to give that government power over matters of god(s) or religion, and (4), indeed, saying nothing substantive about god(s) or religion at all except in a provision precluding any religious test for public office. Given the norms of the day, the founders' avoidance of any expression in the Constitution suggesting that the government is somehow based on any religious belief was quite a remarkable and plainly intentional choice. They later buttressed this separation of government and religion with the First Amendment, which constrains the government from undertaking to establish religion or prohibit individuals from freely exercising their religions. The basic principle, thus, rests on much more than just the First Amendment.

That the phrase "separation of church and state" does not appear in the text of the Constitution assumes much importance, it seems, to some who may have once labored under the misimpression it was there and, upon learning they were mistaken, reckon they’ve discovered a smoking gun solving a Constitutional mystery. To those familiar with the Constitution, the absence of the metaphor commonly used to name one of its principles is no more consequential than the absence of other phrases (e.g., Bill of Rights, separation of powers, checks and balances, fair trial, religious liberty) used to describe other undoubted Constitutional principles.

David Barton of Wallbuilders, by the way, should be taken with a grain of salt. As revealed by the meticulous analysis of Chris Rodda and many others, zealotry more than fact shapes his work, which is riddled with shoddy scholarship and downright dishonesty. See Chris Rodda, Liars for Jesus: The Religious Right's Alternate Version of American History (2006) (available free on line http://www.liarsforjesus.com/); http://www.patheos.com/Resources/Additional-Resources/Should-Christians-Trust-David-Barton-John-Fea-05-11-2011.html. Rodda presents Barton's claims, reviews the evidence and explanations he offers, and then shines a bright light on the evidence omitted, misinterpreted, or even made up by Barton, all with documentation and references so complete one can readily assess the facts for one's self without the need to take either Barton's or Rodda's word for it. The irony is that, by knowingly resorting to lies, this would-be champion of a religious right version of history reveals his fears that the real facts fall short of making his case.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++

SlantRight: My Thoughts

Indeep:

Separation of church and state is a bedrock principle of our Constitution much like the principles of separation of powers and checks and balances.

SlantRight:

This one of the most deceptive lies the Left propagates especially as tied to the Living Constitution concept. There is NO mention in the U.S. Constitution anywhere relating to Separation of Church and State especially in the First Amendment whence Leftist propagandists tie this imaginary wall of separation between Church and State.

For review let’s look at the First Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

The ONLY intent of separation here is the State (i.e. Congress) cannot establish a State religion. Incidentally ALL Americans were aware the religion spoken of was Christianity hence the concept of separation of Church and State. Church meaning Christianity; Congress cannot Establish a State Christian Church in which Americans must support with their taxes. NOTICE that Congress (i.e. the State) cannot prohibit the FREE EXERCISE of religion. This means the State cannot prevent the practice of religion in the public domain; e.g. School; Local, State and Federal Government (and the buildings and land supported by taxpayers); Football games or anything that taxpayers wish to do utilize within a reasonable manner. And so even the Supreme Court of the United States was in line with the Christian influence in America UNTIL roughly the mid 20th century when atheistic Secular Humanism began to make an influence in this country largely due to a revolutionary State that became known as the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) – a declared atheistic State. The Constitution was ratified in 1789 and SCOTUS began eroding Christianity in the mid 1900s.

The concept of the Wall of Separation came from President Thomas Jefferson the third President of the USA. The concept developed by Jefferson was in a letter to the Danbury Baptist Church in Connecticut that was concerned that a State Established Church would diminish their rights. Jefferson’s response when colored with the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment meant that the Federal government could not establish a State Church and I am guessing that he believed the State of Connecticut could not inhibit the Danbury Baptist Church. An essay by Charles Colson suggests that some kind of FBI technology had ferreted out some previous drafts somehow on the Jefferson-to-Danbury letter that suggests the meaning of the “Wall of Separation” meant there was a wall between the Federal government and the State government that separates realms of influence between Federal and State. Suggesting that Federal government is prohibited from establishing a national Church; however as part of States in the Tenth Amendment the various States decide their own Church-State issues.

Tenth Amendment:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

The First Amendment prohibits the Federal Congress to establish a Federal Church and to not pass laws prohibiting the free exercise of religion. The Establishment Clause prohibits Congress from passing a law to establish a Church, but there is no mention of reference to State legislatures. The Constitution also prohibits Congress to interfere with religious freedom implying that all States must apply religious freedom. If Colson is correct then this is the meaning of a Wall of Separation which points toward separating Federal Congressional authority that is intended for States jurisdiction.

Indeep:

In the Constitution, the founders did not simply say in so many words that there should be separation of powers and checks and balances; rather, they actually separated the powers of government among three branches and established checks and balances.

SlantRight:

I have no argument there.

Indeep:

Similarly, they did not merely say there should be separation of church and state; rather, they actually separated them by (1) establishing a secular government on the power of "We the people" (not a deity), (2) saying nothing to connect that government to god(s) or religion, (3) saying nothing to give that government power over matters of god(s) or religion, and (4), indeed, saying nothing substantive about god(s) or religion at all except in a provision precluding any religious test for public office. Given the norms of the day, the founders' avoidance of any expression in the Constitution suggesting that the government is somehow based on any religious belief was quite a remarkable and plainly intentional choice.

SlantRight:

Indeep’s point one is correct in that a secular is Constitutionally established under the auspices of “We the people”. Indeep emphasizes in parenthesis “not a deity”. Well duh, the key is secular government. The establishment of a secular government DOES NOT preclude the foundation of the old Thirteen Colonies transformed in to Thirteen United States owed a debt to Christianity being an influence on the founders. Many Christians came to the American colonies to escape persecution from National Churches in Europe, particularly England. Their prayers and thanks were to Almighty God – a monotheistic deity – for safety, community order and provision. Fast forward to the leadership that rebelled against British rule spelled out in the Declaration of Independence wrote in letters and spoke in public speeches the importance of the Christian faith to influence the rule of law to be Just rather than oppressive.

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

…

You have to realize Indeep that the terms “Law of Nature and Nature’s God” as well as “endowed by their Creator” is a reference to deity, right?

"God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the Gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that His justice cannot sleep forever." 1781, Query XVIII of his Notes on that State of Virginia.

"My views...are the result of a life of inquiry and reflection, and very different from the anti-christian system imputed to me by those who know nothing of my opinions. To the corruptions of Christianity I am, indeed, opposed; but not to the genuine precepts of Jesus himself. I am a Christian in the only sense in which he wished any one to be; sincerely attached to his doctrines in preference to all others..." April 21, 1803 in a letter to Dr. Benjamin.

“The doctrines of Jesus are simple, and tend to all the happiness of man.”

“Of all the systems of morality, ancient or modern which have come under my observation, none appears to me so pure as that of Jesus....I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus."

James Madison:

Belief – Episcopalian

"Religion is the basis and Foundation of Government." June 20, 1785

"It is not the talking but the walking and working person that is the true Christian." In a manuscript on the Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles, Madison makes this statement.

"We have all been encouraged to feel in the guardianship and guidance of that Almighty Being, whose power regulates the destiny of nations." March 4, 1809 Inaugural Address

“We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We’ve staked the future of all our political institutions upon our capacity…to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God.” [1778 to the General Assembly of the State of Virginia]

Indeep’s point three and four are answerable to the points I just made above. The Constitution is a secular document yet its precepts are derived from Christian principles subscribed to by the Founding Fathers and to the devout Christian from Great Britain John Locke. Locke’s thoughts on government were revered by the Founders and you can feel Locke’s thoughts in the Revolutionary War thoughts and especially the Declaration of Independence. Take time to read Locke’s Second Treatise on Civil Government.

Indeep’s point two: “saying nothing to connect that government to god(s) or religion”. I have to say the evidence is fairly plain that Christianity ergo God Almighty was very important to the Founders in establishing the rule of law that “We the people” should view as a venerable foundation for America to be good rather than despotic.

See the website WallofSeparation.com for a more detailed refutation that there is a Constitutional principle emphasizing the Separation of Church and State.

Indeep:

That the phrase "separation of church and state" does not appear in the text of the Constitution assumes much importance, it seems, to some who may have once labored under the misimpression it was there and, upon learning they were mistaken, reckon they’ve discovered a smoking gun solving a Constitutional mystery. To those familiar with the Constitution, the absence of the metaphor commonly used to name one of its principles is no more consequential than the absence of other phrases (e.g., Bill of Rights, separation of powers, checks and balances, fair trial, religious liberty) used to describe other undoubted Constitutional principles.

The greatest flaw in this paragraph by Indeep is that those metaphors such as “Bill of Rights, separation of powers, checks and balances, fair trial, religious liberty” are spelled out specifically to attach a metaphor. The Left Wing version of the metaphor “Wall of Separation between Church and State” IS NOT SPECIFICALLY SPELLED OUT. The culture the Founders lived in, the letters they wrote, most of the public documents of the Colonies and early 13 States made the clause of the First Amendment fairly clear:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”

Indeep:

David Barton of Wallbuilders, by the way, should be taken with a grain of salt. As revealed by the meticulous analysis of Chris Rodda and many others, zealotry more than fact shapes his work, which is riddled with shoddy scholarship and downright dishonesty. See Chris Rodda, Liars for Jesus: The Religious Right's Alternate Version of American History (2006) (available free on line http://www.liarsforjesus.com/); http://www.patheos.com/Resources/Additional-Resources/Should-Christians-Trust-David-Barton-John-Fea-05-11-2011.html. Rodda presents Barton's claims, reviews the evidence and explanations he offers, and then shines a bright light on the evidence omitted, misinterpreted, or even made up by Barton, all with documentation and references so complete one can readily assess the facts for one's self without the need to take either Barton's or Rodda's word for it. The irony is that, by knowingly resorting to lies, this would-be champion of a religious right version of history reveals his fears that the real facts fall short of making his case.

SlantRight:

Indeep berates Barton as a fraud because he believes deeply in the scholarship of Chris Rodda’s exposé of Barton and so-called Right Wing revisionists. This is hilarious considering Leftists have been attempting revise American history for years if not outright omitting history that might disagree with the process of Left Wing ideological goals.

If you Google Chris Rodda you will upon scores of Left Wing websites and media hailing her scholarship as some of the most definitive work to disprove the Christian foundation inherent in America’s existence. Here is an example from Media Matters that always has a Left Slant on all things they attempt to validate or refute:

One of the items in Barton's bag of historical tricks is a rare Bible printed in 1782 by Philadelphia printer Robert Aitken. This Bible has been a mainstay of Barton's presentations for years, and was, as expected, one of the featured pieces of Christian nation "evidence" whipped out on Beck's show. Barton's bogus claim about this Bible? It was printed by Congress for the use of schools -- proof that the founders never intended a separation between church and state. Needless to say, Beck and his audience are just eating this stuff up. Barton's appearances on Beck's show have propelled his fifteen-year-old book of historical hogwash, Original Intent, to bestseller status, reaching as high as #6 on Amazon. Right now, as I sit here writing this post, this masterpiece of historical revisionism is ludicrously, and alarmingly, holding the #1 spot in the category of "Constitutional Law."

And yet David Barton has the actual photocopy. Barton does not assert Congress printed the Aiken Bible but that Congress commission it to occur by the printer Robert Aiken.

On January 21, 1781, Robert Aitken presented a "memorial" [petition] to Congress offering to print "a neat Edition of the Holy Scriptures for the use of schools." This is the text of that memorial:

To the Honourable The Congress of the United States of America The Memorial of Robert Aitken of the City of Philadelphia, Printer

Humbly Sheweth

That in every well regulated Government in Christendom The Sacred Books of the Old and New Testament, commonly called the Holy Bible, are printed and published under the Authority of the Sovereign Powers, in order to prevent the fatal confusion that would arise, and the alarming Injuries the Christian Faith might suffer from the Spurious and erroneous Editions of Divine Revelation. That your Memorialist has no doubt but this work is an Object worthy the attention of the Congress of the United States of America, who will not neglect spiritual security, while they are virtuously contending for temporal blessings. Under this persuasion your Memorialist begs leave to, inform your Honours That he both begun and made considerable progress in a neat Edition of the Holy Scriptures for the use of schools, But being cautious of suffering his copy of the Bible to Issue forth without the sanction of Congress, Humbly prays that your Honours would take this important matter into serious consideration & would be pleased to appoint one Member or Members of your Honourable Body to inspect his work so that the same may be published under the Authority of Congress. And further, your Memorialist prays, that he may be commissioned or otherwise appointed & Authorized to print and vend Editions of, the Sacred Scriptures, in such manner and form as may best suit the wants and demands of the good people of these States, provided the same be in all things perfectly consonant to the Scriptures as heretofore Established and received amongst us.

After appointing a committee to study the project, Congress acted on September 12, 1782, by "highly approv[ing of] the pious and laudable undertaking of Mr. Aitken." The endorsement by Congress was printed in the Aitken Bible:

Aitken published Congress's recommendation of September 1782 and related documents (Item 115) as an imprimatur on the two pages following his title page. Aitken's Bible, published under Congressional patronage, was the first English language Bible published on the North American continent.

… Those who argue that the United States was founded as a "Christian Nation" have made much of the religiosity of the founders, particularly as it was manifested in the ritual invocations of a clearly Christian God as well as in the adoption of practices such as government-sanctioned days of fasting and thanksgiving, prayers and preaching before legislative bodies, and the appointments of chaplains to the Army. Davis looks at the fifteen-year experience of the Continental Congress (1774-1789) and arrives at a contrary conclusion: namely, that the revolutionaries did not seek to entrench religion in the federal state. Congress's religious activities, he shows, expressed a genuine but often unreflective popular piety. Indeed, the whole point of the revolution was to distinguish society, the people in its sovereign majesty, from its government. A religious people would jealously guard its own sovereignty and the sovereignty of God by preventing republican rulers from pretending to any authority over religion. The idea that a modern nation could be premised on expressly theological foundations, Davis argues, was utterly antithetical to the thinking of most revolutionaries. (Emphasis SlantRight)

Derek Davis actually looks at everything I emphasized in bold print and concluded “The idea that a modern nation could be premised on expressly theological foundations, Davis argues, was utterly antithetical to the thinking of most revolutionaries.” What? Let me ask again, WHAT?

Davis looks at the data and measures out a determined conclusion that the Revolutionary War that can be measured from 1774 was antithetical to religion. I sense Davis is confusing the American Revolutionary War with the French Revolution which actually took steps to alienate the Roman Catholic Church in France by not only establishing a secular State, but also establishing a Secular Humanist State. Indeed the French Revolution is a good measure of the religiosity of the new United States of America. Not only were the people of America overwhelming Christian, but America’s intellectuals (i.e. Founding Fathers) were in the majority in believing the French Revolution and its attack on Christianity was very alarming.

Jefferson actually sympathized with the French Revolution at its beginning viewing it as the continuation of the American Revolution as a fight to separate from a Monarchy ruled nation. Nonetheless more visionary Founding Fathers correctly viewed the French Revolution to evolve into a chaotic unstable mess that would end in a dictatorship. Can you say Napoleon Bonaparte?

Davis’ reasoning is the same crazy scholarship of Chris Rodda. The lens of scholarship is way more warped than the Christian Right. Certainly the Christian Right has their own lens that slants a conclusion; however keep in mind that Conservative thought looks at a lens of Original Intent rather than the nutty idea of a Living Constitution that evolves to the needs of a culture that is framed by Secular Humanism. The Left is more interesting in revising an interpretation of history based on an evolving society rather than the actual framework of the occurrence of history.

JRH 1/14/12

************************************

Yes, Chris Rodda, Our Constitution Is Based on the Book of Deuteronomy

Chris Rodda makes it her business to attack the Christian Nation Thesis any chance she gets. David Barton, of Wallbuilders, is usually her target. She is Senior Research Director for the Military Religious Freedom Foundation (MRFF); the group that lobbied the Obama Administration to prohibit Franklin Graham from attending the National Day of Prayer Breakfast in light of his statements about Islam. Chris is the Author of Liars for Jesus: The Religious Right's Alternate Version of American History. However, as this post will show, it is her Alternate Version of American History that needs to be debunked; the Constitution, and Bill of Rights, firmly founded on the Book of Deuteronomy and the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

In attempting to present Barton's distortions, of which there may be, revisionists like Rodda are vulnerable to Orthodox Christians like myself that read the Scriptures everyday. It appears her article about David Barton in Daily Kos, was presented with an ill-advised title: "No, Mr. Beck, Our Constitution is Not Based on the Book of Deuteronomy."

The body of her article that refutes Barton's use of Donald S. Lutz's research: "34% of their quotes came out of the Bible." looks legitimate to me. However, whatever Barton presented that skewed the evidence, has little to do with the Constitution not based on the Book of Deuteronomy.

If the Scriptures and Natural Law are the same, from the same source, the latter will be harmonious with the former, and our unalienable rights will be written in the Scriptures, linked together to the Common Law, Magna Carta, English Bill of Rights (1689) et al. I am not unaware, nor will lessen the impact Natural Law has in this equation, however the framers understood rights are derived from religion and Natural Law; religion a more solid foundation, referenced through Christian philosophers, including Montesquieu and Blackstone, and Protestant forms of government, such as: Switzerland, and Holland. The framers also made it clear, they perused the Protestant Reformers, and Blackstone, in the Constitutional Convention for guidance, however, Rodda distorts that influence she accuses Barton of:

In order to prove that individuals in a State of nature are equally free & independent he read passages from Locke, Vattel, Lord Summers--Priestly. To prove that the case is the same with States till they surrender their equal sovereignty, he read other passages in Locke & Vattel, and also Rutherford: that the States being equal cannot treat or confederate so as to give up an equality of votes without giving up their liberty. [italics mine (i.e. OFT)]

]

-Luther Martin, June 27, 1787. The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787 [Farrand's Records, Volume 1]. MADISON Wednesday June 27. in Convention.

First, our rights as Christians from Jesus and Moses in the Book of Deuteronomy:

II. The Rights of the Colonists as Christians.These may be best understood by reading and carefully studying the institutes of the great Law Giver and Head of the Christian Church, which are to be found clearly written and promulgated in the New Testament.

-Samuel Adams, The Report of the Committee of Correspondence to the Boston Town Meeting. November 20, 1772.

Benjamin Franklin, believed our rights are found in the Bible by endorsing Adams' report, and adopted by inhabitants of Boston, no less:

The person alluded to by Governor Hutchinson, as "the great director in England," was Dr. Franklin, and it is insinuated that he was in effect the author of the report, but this is in no sense true..To the sentiments expressed in the report of the committee, and adopted by the inhabitants of the town, he fully assented. This is proved by his sending a copy of the proceedings to the press, as soon as he received it in London, with a prefatory notice written by himself. The pamphlet was entitled "The Votes and Proceedings of the Freeholders and other Inhabitants of the Town of Boston, in Town Meeting assembled, according to Law. Published by Order of the Town." -- Sparks.

The fact is, liberties, which are our unalienable rights, are immersed in their writings, thus, only liberty can give peace and happiness, and religion is the source of virtue, which brings happiness. It is religion coupled with Natural Law, that grants individual rights that are essential to happiness, thus, John Adams believed our liberties are found in the Scriptures:

Statesmen, my dear Sir, may plan and speculate for Liberty, but it is Religion and Morality alone, which can establish the Principles upon which Freedom can securely stand. The only foundation of a free Constitution is pure Virtue, and if this cannot be inspired into our People in a greater Measure than they have it now, They may change their Rulers and the forms of Government, but they will not obtain a lasting Liberty. They will only exchange Tyrants and Tyrannies.

-Letter to Zabdiel Adams, June 21, 1776.

Adams again, linking Christian morality with unalienable rights found in the Scriptures, and in the true Constitution of Britain. Unalienable rights must encompass the principles Adams alludes to, for the Revolution was fought for more than just improper morality:

The gallant Struggle in America, is founded in Principles so indisputable, in the moral Law, in the revealed Law of God, in the true Constitution of great Britain..."

[T]he Christian religion is the most important and one of the first things in which all children under a free government ought to be instructed. No truth is more evident than that the Christian religion must be the basis of any government intended to secure the rights and privileges of a free people.

-Noah Webster, REVOLUTIONARY SOLDIER; JUDGE; LEGISLATOR; EDUCATOR; “SCHOOLMASTER TO AMERICA” A Collection of Papers on Political, Literary, and Moral Subjects (New York: Webster and Clark, 1843), p. 291, from his “Reply to a Letter of David McClure on the Subject of the Proper Course of Study in the Girard College, Philadelphia. New Haven, October 25, 1836.”

Next, our greatest Judge, called "the american blackstone" whose judicial philosophy of Federal superiority has shaped our nation to this day, wrote the free exercise clause is found in the Scriptures:

The rights of conscience are, indeed, beyond the just reach of any human power. They are given by God, and cannot be encroached upon by human authority, without a criminal disobedience or [sp?], the precepts or [sp?] natural, as well as of revealed religion. [italics mine (i.e. OFT)]

Judge Story was also the author of valuable notes on prize, admiralty, maritime, and patent law contained in appendices to Supreme Court reports, and a frequent contributor to the North American Review, in which he published legal essays. His judicial opinions and writings laid the foundation for admiralty law, equity jurisprudence, and commercial law in the United States. Though a member of the judiciary, Story also worked diligently to clarify and improve Federal laws. He drafted legislation to extend the jurisdiction of the circuit courts and revise the bankruptcy laws.

Story may justly be regarded as the real founder of the Harvard Law School; for his appointment marked an important turning point in the history of an institution that was faltering until Story took command. As a result of his leadership, enrollment increased, the quality of instruction improved, and the school's reputation for excellence grew rapidly.

-American Reference Library, The Ultimate Reference to American History and Political Science, World Book Encyclopedia. 1998 World Book, Inc and Western Standard Publishing Company.

Just where are the texts in the Scripture that expound unalienable rights?

LIFE, Judges 13:5, Deut 24:16. HAPPINESS, Eccles 3:13. Ironically, several rights are in the same chapter of Deuteronomy, listed one after the other, as the framers listed the Bill of Rights:

Property, Ninth and Tenth Amendment: Deut 19:14. "Thou shalt not remove thy neighbour's landmark, which they of old time have set in thine inheritance, which thou shalt inherit in the land that the LORD thy God giveth thee to possess it." and I Kings 4:25.

Trial by Jury. Sixth Amendment: v.15. "One witness shall not rise up against a man for any iniquity, or for any sin, in any sin that he sinneth: at the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall the matter be established."

Right to bear arms. Second Amendment: “He that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.” (Luke 22:36)

Free Speech, assembly, free exercise. First Amendment:

John 4:14But whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life.

John 6:40,47,51,54And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever:Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.

John 7:37In the last day, that great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried, saying, If any man thirst, let him come unto me, and drink.

John 8:51Verily, verily, I say unto you, If a man keep my saying, he shall never see death.

Many State legal codes, the death penalty, et al., are quoted verbatim by the framers. It isn't difficult to see why the framers considered America the "New Zion."

So Israel under the monarchy always had an armed population (as the 2nd Amendment envisions for the United States). It also had powerful dissidents, the prophets, who were not afraid to use their freedom of speech to rebuke the government (as the 1st Amendment provides). Yet even though ancient Israel might be said to have protected both 1st Amendment and 2nd Amendment rights, these were not sufficient to protect the full scope of liberty and prevent serious abuses by government. The concentration of national political power continued to have terrible consequences.

http://libertyunbound.com/archive/2007_04/kopel-israel.htmlThe framers knew where these rights derived, just as Thomas Paine understood Israel was a "kind of Republic." There was no mention at the Constitutional Convention of any separation of church and state, only the anti-establishment clause. We see this is true because they immediately hired Christian chaplains, issued Christian religious proclamations, promoted Christianity amongst the Indians, used government buildings for Christian church services, used the bible as a textbook in federally run public schools, set aside land for Christian religious purposes and continuousy thanked God for his blessings, guidance, and protection.

Whatever be the case of Barton's errors, the entire foundation of Law: the Declaration, Constitution and Bill of Rights, are founded upon the Bible.